Have you bought any?
Original text
http://www.regent.edu/acad/schlaw/ac...4_2Rondeau.PDF
Cliff Notes...
Selling Homosexuality
You generally know an ad campaign when you see it, and you don't take it seriously. You may buy Pepsi, but you don't really believe drinking it makes you cool because Britney Spears pitches it. But you may not recognize an ad campaign so easily when it's not relegated to paid 30-second spots. Or when the product being sold isn't a soft drink, but an idea, or an attitude, or a worldview.
Which brings us to a fascinating article in the Regent University Law Review. In an issue analyzing various aspects of gay activism, one piece is especially noteworthy: “Selling Homosexuality to America” by Paul Rondeau, a longtime sales and marketing consultant for corporate America. Rondeau shows how homosexual activists have pursued a specific marketing campaign aimed at moving America in their direction — a strategy that's worked precisely because it was both clever and covert.
Rondeau's evidence doesn't come just from right-wingers. He quotes people like Tammy Bruce, a lesbian and ex-president of the Los Angeles chapter of the National Organization for Women who these days voices concern that gay activists are squelching other citizens' freedoms. Speaking of the marketing strategy, Bruce notes that "What is pitched is different — a product brand versus an issue — but the method is the same. In each case, the critical thing is not to let the public know how it is done."
But Rondeau's most compelling evidence comes straight from the people who designed the gay PR campaign: Harvard-trained social scientists Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, who in the late ‘80s issued a call for gay activists to adopt "carefully calculated public relations propaganda."
Their strategy came dressed up in marketing jargon: “Desensitize, jam and convert.” As it turns out, though, you could use one word to summarize all those others: manipulation.
Desensitization, write Kirk and Madsen, means subjecting the public to a “continuous flood of gay-related advertising, presented in the least offensive fashion possible. If straights can’t shut off the shower, they may at least eventually get used to being wet.”
Again, this doesn’t mean conventional advertising. “The main thing is to talk about gayness until the issue becomes thoroughly tiresome,” they say. “If you can get [straights] to think homosexuality is just another thing — meriting no more than a shrug of the shoulders — then your battle for legal and social rights is virtually won.” Turn on the TV practically any night, watch the endless stream of gay characters and references, and you’ll get the idea.
Jamming means, simply, smearing anyone who disagrees with their agenda. “Jam homohatred [i.e., opposition to homosexuality] by linking it to Nazi horror,” urge Kirk and Madsen; associate all detractors with images like “Klansmen demanding that gays be slaughtered,” “hysterical backwoods preachers,” “menacing punks,” and a “tour of Nazi concentration camps where homosexuals were tortured and gassed.”
Moreover, they add,

gays can undermine the moral authority of homohating churches over less fervent adherents by portraying [them] as antiquated backwaters, badly out of step . . . with the latest findings of psychology. Against the atavistic tug of Old Time Religion one must set the mightier pull of Science and Public Opinion. . . . Such an ‘unholy’ alliance has already worked well in America against the churches, on such topics as divorce and abortion. . . . [T]hat alliance can work for gays.”

Conversion means “conversion of the average American’s emotions, mind, and will, through a planned psychological attack, in the form of propaganda fed to the nation via the media.” Here, too, the portrayal of homosexuality on TV fits the mold perfectly. The viewer who’s not on board with homosexuality (whom they call “the bigot") is to be “repeatedly exposed to literal picture/label pairs . . . of gays . . . carefully selected to look either like the bigot and his friends, or like any of his other stereotypes of all the right guys.”
Kirk and Madsen don’t want to stop there, though. They want to “paint gay men and lesbians as superior — veritable pillars of society.” To this end, “famous historical figures are considered especially useful to us;” not only do they bring prestige, they’re also “invariably dead as a doornail, hence in no position to deny the truth and sue for libel.” (Good thing, too, considering the flimsy evidence that often gets trotted out in these cases. Gays and their allies have even claimed biblical figures like Abraham and David for their camp.1)
Of course, Kirk and Madsen are well aware that there are also plenty of things not to portray. They stress the need to keep quiet about the details of homosexual practices, at least until the public is thoroughly desensitized. “First you get your foot in the door, by being as similar as possible; then, and only then — when your one little difference [sexual orientation] is finally accepted — can you start dragging in your other peculiarities, one by one.”
What “peculiarities?” Well, to take one that’s been in the news lately, sex between adults and minors, as advocated by groups like the North American Man-Boy Love Association. “We’re not judging you, but others do, and very harshly; please keep a low profile,” Kirk and Madsen tell such groups. “You offend the public more than other gays.”2
What else? As Rondeau says,

Pederasts, gender-benders, sado-masochists, and other minorities within the homosexual community with more extreme “peculiarities” would keep a low profile. . . . Also, common practices such as anal-oral sex, anal sex, fisting and anonymous sex — that is to say what homosexuals actually do and with how many they do it — must never be a topic.

Beyond reporting on the details of the PR campaign, Rondeau’s great service is to show readers that it even exists. “It is not common practice to think of social movements in terms of marketing,” he notes. “Perhaps this is because using terms like ‘selling’ or ‘marketing’ seems to denigrate noble activities” usually portrayed by their supporters “in terms of grass roots and the will of the people.” In reality, however, “homosexual activists envision that a decision is ultimately made without society ever realizing that it has been purposely conditioned to arrive at a conclusion it thinks is its own.”
That last point is an important one. We all like to think we make up our own minds — after full consideration of all the issues, with equal time for both sides, etc. We also like to think that public opinion arises spontaneously, more or less organically from ordinary people reacting to their own life experience. After all, it’s not very flattering to think of yourself and the people you know as, well, sheep. (Someone has defined public opinion as “what everyone thinks everyone else thinks.”)
In short, one reason we can be manipulated is that we don’t want to know we’re being manipulated. Yet when someone blows the lid off the manipulation campaign — as Rondeau has — we can hardly miss it. And once we know what’s going on, we naturally and rightly resent it.
Rondeau’s article isn’t likely to get much coverage in the standard media outlets, for obvious reason. Nor is it likely to get wide attention among academics, since it ran in the journal of a conservative Christian university. (Academic snobbery can play as big a role as liberal politics.)
But the Internet transcends traditional media and academic gatekeepers. If half the people who read this column forward it to a few of their friends, word will get around to an awful lot of folk. Not as many as watch Will & Grace, mind you, but maybe enough to get a real debate going on the merits of homosexuality — on issues like where it comes from (click here and here), what's wrong with it and how it distorts God's plan (click here and here).
A real debate. Somehow I think that’s the last thing the Kirks and Madsens of the world want to see.

Truth is here.

oooooh

fxashun discovers more articles about gay people and gay sex!!!!!

he must be shivering in delight

poor pathetic thing without a life

how surprising (not) that he has to use anti-gay Christian zealot websites to find them LOL

I wonder how many "real" religious articles he had to wade through before finding one about homosexuality...LOL - he didn't seem to learn anything from them - perhaps he has some kind of disorder which only allows him to grasp the concepts of homosexuality? LOL

Let's see which tactic Tristan is using here...

Jamming means, simply, smearing anyone who disagrees with their agenda.

Yup, he's typical. Let's see what comes next. Probably another post about "me" but not about the topic of the thread. Let's see how long until he starts to actually debate the actual topic at hand.

why don't you hold your breath while waiting to see?

no - really

hold your breath

edited to add: there is no 'topic at hand' - you merely cut and pasted an OLD article from a religious zealot website about something that two men wrote thirty years ago and are attempting to broadbrush the entire gay community about it.

there is no debate - I read the article - I followed the link back to the source and realized that it's hardly a legitimate news or research source. Nothing to debate. But I'm sure you got a few quivers and shivers finding something new to post.

Dude your ignorance is spellbinding...How does something written 30 years ago have 2000 era footnotes? DUH!!!

30 years my anu...wait...nevermind.
Regent University School of Law, Law Review - Article Summaries
Paul E. Rondeau, Director of Develppment for Regent University, has been a senior Sales and Marketing Management professional with industry leaders for more than 25 years.

the same way a paper written today about the Greco-Roman civilization might have 2000 era footnotes. DUH!!! Your ignorance is spellbinding.

oops - sorry - twenty years. I neglected to acknowledge the "late" qualifier.

by the way - I see you've been bounced from another forum. gonna stick around here until you kill this one?

Yep, went with the Jam.

Let's look at what you said and how you are lying now....
You said..
you merely cut and pasted an OLD article from a religious zealot website about something that two men wrote thirty years ago and are attempting to broadbrush the entire gay community about it.

That's not what I did at all. I provided the original text in PDF form. The article was published in 2002.

And I then provided a cliff notes version for those that didn't want to download the full PDF file. I just posted a note about the author of the artcle and a link to the law school where it came from. Your slip is showing Trissie.

And if you would check the visited today list...I'm there.

If that's the only footnote you see there, I'm glad I'm not one of those students you claim to have taught. Must have been special ed.

This is 2008 - as far as I'm concerned, an article written in 2000 IS an old article.

The article is written about (and criticizing) what two men wrote about in the 1980's. Once again, this is 2008. As far as I'm concerned that is a long time ago.

Imagine - two men writing some kind of political manifesto - and somebody 20 years later having nothing more damning to write about gays has to resort to using it. As if it means anything to BEGIN with. Nobody knows who Madsen and Kirk are/were and what they wrote. It's all meaningless.

Even though most of what they wrote is simply good political strategy as used today by the GOP and DNC.

However, using right wing religious zealot websites as a good source for information about homosexuality is pretty much like reading Aryan Nation to find out about Jews and blacks. You seem to be in very like-minded company.